While carriers have long insisted they offer "unlimited" data, they go to great lengths to avoid offering said advertised product when the gluttonous masses inevitably come calling to partake in the all-you-can-eat buffet. Countless companies have had their wrists slapped for the failure to disclose that their "unlimited" plans are in fact quite limited. Verizon settled a lawsuit from NY's AG back in 2007 for advertising capped and throttled services as unlimited. When Verizon and AT&T later ditched all unlimited plans, they both still waged a quiet war on unlimited users, again throttling or otherwise restricting their data consumption.

In recent years T-Mobile has taken advantage of this shift and marketed itself as one of the last companies that truly embraces unlimited data. Well, sort of. If you sign up for an unlimited T-Mobile smartphone plan, T-Mobile's website will quietly inform you that by "unlimited" T-Mobile actually means 21 GB, after which (provided you're on a congested tower), you'll have your speeds "de-prioritized" for the remainder of your billing cycle. Customers that sign up for unlimited data are also greeted with this notice, usually down below the advertisement:

So under T-Mobile's "unlimited" plans, unlimited smartphone use may actually be somewhere around 21 GB, while data consumed when tethering the phone as a modem or hotspot is throttled after 7 GB of consumption. Now to be fair, those allotments are pretty generous. And as carriers are quick to argue, the fact that you can still use data beyond those limits (albeit at reduced speeds) still technically means the connection is "unlimited." But the industry's still playing it a little loose with what is a clearly-defined term (I've underlined the key synonyms above if any confused carriers are reading).

"...These violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data. They’re downloading apps that hide their tether usage, rooting their phones, writing code to mask their activity, etc. They are “hacking” the system to swipe high speed tethered data. These aren't naive amateurs; they are clever hackers who are willfully stealing for their own selfish gain."

According to Legere these "clever hackers" only comprise around 1/100 of a percent of the company's 59 million customers, and a few of them have been eating as much as two terabytes a month of data. So why is T-Mobile making so much noise about a small number of customers it could easily shove to metered plans privately? T-Mobile's trying to get out ahead of media criticism for imposing limits on "unlimited" data, and to avoid the FCC's net neutrality and transparency rules by clearly stating intent (even if the T-Mobile FAQ on the issue doesn't really offer technical specifics).

It should be noted that every ISP on the planet has to deal with a small subset of extremely heavy users. This is nothing new, and if T-Mobile had said nothing, people probably wouldn't have given a damn. But after insulting his userbase, Legere proceeds with false bravado to pretend that the perfectly ordinary practice of protecting the network from gluttons somehow makes T-Mobile an industry leader:

These abusers will probably try to distract everyone by waving their arms about throttling data. Make no mistake about it – this is not the same issue. Don’t be duped by their sideshow. We are going after every thief, and I am starting with the 3,000 users who know exactly what they are doing...I won't let a few thieves ruin things for anyone else. We’re going to lead from the front on this, just like we always do. Count on it!

Good job I guess?
To be clear: outside of its wishy-washy net neutrality stance I like T-Mobile, and think the company has done some great things to nudge the industry forward (like killing subsidies and reducing overseas roaming costs). I also think these allotments are more than fair for the price being paid, and T-Mobile has every right to police its network, since two terabytes of mobile consumption is gluttonous by any standard. That said, acting like it's the pinnacle of "clever hacking" and villainy to modify a device you own to get a service advertised as unlimited is a tad specious and theatrical. And Legere's decision to subsequently bicker with users on Twitter for the rest of the day wasn't the "uncarrier's" finest PR hour:

@LEVST3R as I said the abusers will try to confuse the issue and this is one of the ways..nice try

Snark, fanboys and fisticuffs aside, the core of the problem continues to be the use of the word unlimited to sell products that simply aren't. Since the first time the term was marketed it has confused the hell out of users who don't understand that in the age of finite spectrum, intelligent network management and hungry bean counters, there really is no such thing. If you're not willing to offer truly unlimited data (and frankly no spectrum-constrained wireless carrier truly is), stop advertising unlimited data, put your next-best offer clearly on the table, and stop molesting the god-damned dictionary.

from the sleight-of-hand dept

You may recall that Verizon Wireless bought the famed C-block of 700 MHz spectrum at auction back in 2008, which had an openness requirement. At the time, people wondered if Verizon Wireless would actually live up to the openness requirements, with some worrying that there were significant loopholes. In fact, ever since then, people have raised questions about whether Verizon Wireless was even paying the most basic lip service to those open requirements.

The FCC has now given Verizon Wireless a slap on the wrist, for blocking various tethering apps from the Android Market for Android-based Verizon Wireless phones. The company has agreed to pay $1.25 million and to no longer block those apps. Of course, as Karl Bode has noted, this probably isn't that big a deal to Verizon Wireless, since it had already been moving away from blocking such apps as it moved to its new "shared data plans." Bode wonders if this settlement may have been more for show as it gears up to approve an anti-competitive plan that Verizon is seeking to drive its DSL users to competing cable platforms:

In other words, the FCC took action and finally enforced 2008 rules when they knew Verizon was already changing their ways -- without FCC involvement. Meanwhile, the FCC is rumored to be ready to sign off on Verizon's marketing relationship with the cable industry, despite the serious anti-competitive and coverage issues that deal raises. This tethering ruling could be a way to pretend to appear "pro consumery" before approving the Verizon cable deal.

I'm not sure the FCC is going that far, but perhaps that's part of the problem. The FCC never seems to want to go very far at all, always seeking to not offend anyone, with the end result being that the telcos almost always get their way in the long run.

A first for any Olympic Games is the ban on personal or private wireless access points and 3G hubs, which are not allowed at London Olympics events and venues.

iPhones, iPads, and Android phones and tablets are permitted inside venues, but must not be used as wireless access points to connect multiple devices.

It's possible (or perhaps likely) that this is done to help local mobile operators from having their networks overburdened, but, really, you'd think that the mobile operators would be out in droves with those "cells on wheels" (COW) vehicles that provide significantly more cellular power at high traffic events. Still, I'm curious as to how anyone enforces such a ban. It's pretty easy to hide a MiFi. And turning your phone into a hotspot and slipping it back into a pocket would make it almost impossible to detect. The whole ban just seems pointless.

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Yet another reminder that, in this day and age, you often don't actually own the products that you've purchased. The latest to make this point is Verizon, who has begun remotely crippling Android smartphones, turning off a feature that let people use the phones as mobile hotspots. The reason? Well, to make you pay more to re-enable the feature you used to have:

Verizon this week began pushing smartphone updates that cripple some devices' innate ability to be used as a mobile hotspot -- for free. Specifically, Verizon pushed an update to the HTC Thunderbolt that blocked the devices embedded hotspot functionality, making the device less valuable and less useful to consumers. Why? Verizon wants to ensure that users have to pay an additional $20 a month mobile hotspot fee.

The company has also received some help from Google, getting the Android maker to remove any tethering apps from the Google marketplace, thereby making it (somewhat) more difficult to workaround this feature-kill. As Karl Bode notes in the post linked above, this seems the opposite of "open", which both Verizon and Google have been pushing when it comes to Android.

from the hell-no dept

Broadband Reports points us to the latest in silly arguments over non-existent "theft." This time it's about whether or not tethering your smartphone and using it as a hotspot or as a broadband connection for your computer/laptop is "theft of service." Two ZDNet bloggers go at it, with James Kendrick insisting that it's "theft of service," and no arguments to the contrary will persuade him. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols points out that this is complete "nonsense." In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I do pay for the right to tether my mobile phone, even though I agree with Vaughan-Nichols and think Kendrick is wrong here.

If a bandwidth provider is selling you bandwidth at a particular rate, it's none of that provider's business what you then do with the bandwidth. Claiming that only certain devices can use it is silly. We had this back in the early days of WiFi when some ISPs insisted it was a terms of service violation to use WiFi or (in some cases) any router that allowed more than one computer to use the bandwidth. However, as more and more people just started doing it anyway, the ISPs all realized they were fighting a silly battle (and moved on to the next silly battle: "net neutrality.")

But, really, the ridiculous claim is Kendrick's insistence on calling people who do this "thieves," even though they're paying customers who are paying for the bandwidth they use. Vaughan-Nichols properly points out that, at worst, it's a terms of service violation that has absolutely nothing to do with "theft." He also points out that he's paying for the bandwidth:

I don't see why it matters if I use gigabytes of data on my phone or on my phone and laptop. At the end of the day, I still pay for it.

To me a data service is lot like my water line. I pay for what I use. Now I can drink that water, use it on my phone; wash clothes with it, use it on my PC; or shower with it, use it on my iPod Touch. Whatever. When all is said and done, I've still paid for the water or service and I've not stolen anything.

No, the real problem here isn't users. It's the carriers who charge us extra for the 'privilege' of deciding how we're going to use the data/water we receive from them.

Kendrick's response appears to be to just keep repeating that it's "theft of service," but can't back that up by explaining what's missing. That's because nothing is missing. It's not theft of service in any way, shape or form, and it does Kendrick a disservice to his usually excellent analysis to beat this particularly misguided drum.

from the no-longer-to-infinity-and-beyond dept

As they had previously hinted, starting June 7th, AT&T's new smartphone customers will no longer be able to opt for the $30 unlimited data plan that was previously offered. Instead, two plans will be offered, both with monthly usage caps: $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB. Additionally, tethering is now available for an additional $20 a month. However, tethering is only available with one of the new capped plans. Those who already have the old $30 unlimited plan will be able to keep it... but won't be able to tether. So, existing power users have to decide between $30 a month for unlimited internet data without tethering, or $45 a month for 2GB of data with tethering -- of course, with tethering, data usage would likely go up... even as the amount of data you can use goes way down.

AT&T's motive behind this switch (beyond the obvious of boosting profits) is to attempt to address the network capacity issues that it has been experiencing, of late. As anyone on AT&T can attest, performance of the AT&T data network is far from stellar. The adoption of smartphones like the iPhone have made the internet a truly useful part of the mobile experience, and as such, data use on the AT&T network has risen dramatically as a result. Clearly, AT&T was not able to properly plan to handle the increased demand on its network, and as a result, is claiming it needed to respond by throttling the usage. Of course, one might argue an alternative would be to invest more in capacity, but that gets in the way of that boosting profits thing.

"Some customers, up until now, have been hesitant to sign up for a $30 monthly data plan" for unlimited access, says Ralph de la Vega

Fair enough, but just because some people have been hesitant to sign up for the unlimited data plan doesn't mean you should do away with it altogether.

That said, there are actually a few things that AT&T has done right with this announcement. It's surprising that they are actually offering a cheaper tier for limited data -- something that they had not offered before. Also, with the limited plans, they have introduced a system of alerts that will notify users when they are near their caps. And, existing users with unlimited plans can continue as long as they want, without the tethering option, of course.

Even so, throttling usage could put a damper on the explosive growth of smartphone usage that we have seen in the past few years. There is an added cognitive transaction cost whenever a limit exists, so, by introducing these limits, AT&T has effectively made the iPhone less appealing. Recently, when asked about AT&T's capacity issues, Steve Jobs said "things, when you start to fix them, get worse before they get better. That's what I'm told. And if you believe that, things should start getting a lot better soon." It sounds like Jobs knew what was coming.

from the no-soup-for-you dept

AT&T has modified the terms of service for its mobile data network, banning "downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, web broadcasting, and... any applications that tether the device... to Personal Computers or other equipment." So in addition to banning illegal movie downloads, AT&T's banned things like SlingPlayer that consumers can use to legally view content, services like Qik that let them show live video on the web from their phones. Why would it do such a thing? Well, either it's looking to protect its commercial interests by banning services for which it hopes to charge its customers, or its network isn't up to snuff and can't support all the things its customers would like to do with it. This sort of stuff, sadly, is par for the course for the mobile industry, home of the "unlimited" plan that's actually got lots of limits. In the end, the only ones who end up getting hurt by these things are the operators themselves. By seeking to limit what their customers can do with their phones, they're limiting how valuable they are to their users -- which means at some point, they won't be willing to pay as much for them.